It seems like anytime I post about potential problems with low-carb diets I get all this pushback. For example, in the last post I summarized a case study of a person on the Atkins diet. The person switched to an Atkins diet and a couple years later developed chest pains and erectile dysfunction. Then he switched to a whole foods diet and within two months the chest pain and ED went away.
Of course, this type of case report is riddled with problems. Correlation does not equal causation. Time lags. Etc. But here's the thing: would any objective bystander tell this person that he should go back on the Atkins diet? It's just common sense to see that this particular diet didn't work for this person.
And this is the key issue for me when discussing this report: people acknowledge their own experience as being highly relevant but dismiss anyone else's experiences as being incorrect. It's like some kind of mental block: "Atkins worked for me and so therefore it must work for everyone else". Why do people assume there is no variability across people's response to diets?
As in the responses to this report: "maybe he ate carbs", "maybe he didn't exercise", "maybe he didn't eat the right fats". Here's a simpler explanation: maybe the diet as prescribed didn't work for him. Why don't people want to acknowledge that low-carb hasn't worked, doesn't work, and will not for some people? It's like it would be a sin to admit this. (By the way, did anyone notice that there was a 42% attrition rate in the two-year low-carb diet study that was just published?)
Let me say that I am not necessarily against low-carb diets. It's not something I do, but if it works long-term for a person, then great. But the idea that a person has to do low-carb to achieve leanness and/or health is ridiculous. Martin over at LeanGains has amassed an incredible photo gallery of people achieving low body fat on moderate carbs. Further, you have Stephen's report on a culture in New Guinea that consumes 90% of their calories from sweet potatoes, and they seem to be in fine health.
I don't see what's so controversial about acknowledging all this.
I take a seasonal approach. Higher carbs and more exercise in the summer months and lower carbs and more rest in the winter.
Matt,
I, for one, am with you. It so often happens that people who take the first brave step of questioning their old beliefs fail to take the second brave step of questioning their new ones. Knowledge in these areas is always evolving and is never complete. I admire your curiosity and skepticism, and your courage in posting your personal insights. It’s inspiring.
Matt,
There is nothing wrong in acknowledging all this. I agree with you 100% & think most would. That being said, it’s just a bad study (if you can call it that) possibly fudged by anti-meat low fat vegan physician Neal Barnard & most definately being used as propaganda. Also, more than likely the whole food diet referenced was most likely a whole food vegan diet as Dr. Barnard would never prescribe anything less. So if you said the same thing above without referencing that study you might’ve been hit with less resistance from your readers.
Thanks Mike, I appreciate the support.
Okay, fair enough.
Yep, I agree. I might not put the patient back on the version of the Atkins diet he was doing, but I’d be asking questions as to exactly what he was eating, and fixing the misunderstandings. God knows that the recent Atkins books are not much more than advertisements for the Atkins bars and shakes, etc. The guy probably had little idea what he was doing, or what he was doing wrong.
Personally, I’m very open-minded when it comes to studies. When I see reports of clinical studies demonstrating that a particular kind of eating has lead to improved markers, I hope that it is accurate as I examine the potential for errors (ownership, sponsorship, researcher bias, study size, blah blah blah). Everything screams BS about the case report you link to, sadly. But if it had been a reputable clinical trial that had generated these results, I would be questioning my choices seriously.
Well said, Mike.
> Then he switched to a whole foods diet and within two months the chest pain and ED went away.
Ehm… maybe the coronary stent had some influence as well ?
I really think people should listen to what their bodies are telling them. If we listen carefully, our bodies are unfailingly telling us what we should be eating. For me, sometimes my body wants mostly vegetable with some meat and carbs, sometimes my body wants more protein than fat, sometimes more ft than carbs. If we listen to our bodies instead of what Internet is telling us, we’d be much better off.
Agreed!
But “listening to your body” needs to be recognized as a skill that needs to defined and practiced. Many, if not most people, have no concept of what it means and how it works. If you can become good at it then it is a very useful tool.
From what I can tell, the subject of the case study in question is Jody Gorran, who sued Atkins back in 2003 or 2004.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5137232
While on Atkins, he ate cheesecake every few days. Who knows what his other cheats were? In my experience, most folks following Atkins eat tons of mayo, restaurant low carb food, and other stuff full of industrial seed oils.
That said, whole food high-carb diets can be perfectly healthy. I just think whole food high-fat diets are fine, too.
Hello Matt,
Regarding the “low-carb vs high-carb” issue, I tend to agree with Mark Sisson. From an evolutionary standpoint, carbs are not essential and may even prove unhealthy. Fruit and vegetables are excluded of course, which means 50-100 grams of carbs daily.
Regarding the variability across people’s response to diets: I remember reading an old Mike Mentzer article on Flex magazine, where he made a good point that basically we are all the same. We all have more-or-less identical organisms and systems, and that’s why pharmacology (for example) is able to deliver results. Fluctuations do exist, but they are mostly marginal.